Ulster-Scots Agency

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 18 November (WA 273) concerning the 2003 budget for the Ulster-Scots Agency, who agreed to the budget in February; and whether an appropriate business plan was considered and agreed.

Baroness Amos: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer of 10 July 2003 (HL3275) regarding the budget for the North/South Language Body. The business plan for the Ulster-Scots Agency for 2003 was the subject of ongoing consideration by officials in the sponsoring departments and the Departments of Finance, North and South, between its initial submission by the agency in 2002 and formal joint approval by Ministers, North and South on 11 November 2003.

North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 20 November (WA 352), whether they do not expect any underspend from either section of the Language Implementation Body for 2003.

Baroness Amos: Since the Answer given to the noble Lord on 20 November, the Ulster-Scots Agency has confirmed that it expects to spend its budget for 2003. The Irish Language Agency has indicated that it may not spend its entire budget for 2003.

North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 15 December (WA 91) about the 2003 budget for the Ulster-Scots Agency, why the information requested was not provided; and whether they will now provide it.

Baroness Amos: I have nothing further to add to the Answer given on 15 December 2003. (WA 91).

Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the view of Lord Palmerston expressed in 1865 that there are many occasions when it is proper and for the convenience of the House that the opinions of the Attorney-General should be made known.

Baroness Amos: By longstanding convention, observed by successive governments, the fact of and substance of the Law Officers' advice is not disclosed outside government. This convention is referred to in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code. This enables the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence, as everyone else can. The exceptions to this are rare.

Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On which occasions since 1865 the advice of the Attorney-General has been publicly disclosed.

Baroness Amos: The Government do not maintain records of occasions on which exceptions have been made to the convention against disclosure of Law Officers' advice.
	I am aware of only two cases in which Law Officers' advice was disclosed. In both cases, disclosure was made for the purposes of judicial proceedings. In 1993, Law Officers' advice relevant to the subject matter of the Arms to Iraq inquiry was disclosed to the Scott inquiry. The advice was published in an annex to the inquiry report. Law Officers' advice on the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act was disclosed to the other parties in the course of the Factortame litigation in which Spanish fishermen were seeking damages from the Government for a breach of Community Law.
	I am aware of three other cases in which the views of the Law Officers on a particular matter were disclosed, but not the actual advice. In February 1971, the substance of the Law Officers' advice relating to the UK's obligations to supply arms to South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement was published in a command paper (Cmnd 4589). In February 1993, the views of the Law Officers' advice were disclosed in the debate in the other House on the Maastricht Treaty. In March this year the Attorney-General set out in a Written Answer a summary of his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq.

Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the reason for publishing the summary of the views of the Attorney-General on the legality of the war against Iraq; and why they have since consistently declined requests for information as to whether the Attorney-General gave any fuller advice on the legality of the war.

Baroness Amos: In view of the high level of public interest in the proposed military action against Iraq, the Attorney-General, exceptionally, made a Written Statement in Parliament on 17 March 2003 setting out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq.
	The Government have not declined to answer requests for information as to whether the Attorney-General gave advice on the legality of the military action. It has been made clear in response to a number of Parliamentary Questions that the Attorney-General's detailed advice would not be disclosed in view of the long-standing convention, adhered to by successive governments, that advice of the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed. The purpose of the convention is to enable the Government, like everyone else, to receive full and frank legal advice in confidence.

Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure

Lord Alexander of Weedon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the views expressed by international lawyers and Kofi Annan that the invasion of Iraq was contrary to international law, they will now publish the full advice of the Attorney-General so that his reasons may be open to public scrutiny.

Baroness Amos: As I made clear in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on 13 October, there is a longstanding convention, adhered to by successive governments, and reflected in paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Code, that legal advice from the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed. This is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 4d of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In view of the exceptional public interest in the proposed military action against Iraq, the Attorney-General set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force in a Written Answer on 17 March 2003.
	The Government's view remains as set out in the Written Answer referred to above and in the Foreign Secretary's memorandum submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 17 March. shirley

Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord President on 8 December (WA 39) and 10 September (WA 123), why the Answers did not explain the necessity of providing a car for the chief executive of the Special European Union Programmes Body when other chief executives of cross-Border bodies were not provided with a car as part of their remuneration package.

Baroness Amos: The previous Answers (WA 39 and WA 123) explained that the provision of a leased car for the chief executive of the Special European Union Programmes Body was necessary because it was part of the remuneration package negotiated and agreed with the prospective chief executive of the SEUPB before his appointment to the post. Other chief executives of cross-Border bodies were not provided with a car as part of their remuneration packages because this was not negotiated and agreed with them prior to their appointment.

Special European Union Programmes Body

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the first chief executive of the Special European Programmes Body was suspended; and why he was subsequently re-instated, before he then resigned within a week.

Baroness Amos: Mr McKinney, the chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), was suspended from duty on 21 May 2003 because he was the subject of a police investigation, relating to an issue arising from his previous employment with Omagh District Council. The police investigation remains ongoing. It was agreed between the British and Irish Governments and Mr McKinney that it would be in the interests of all concerned, and in the public interest, to end the uncertainty arising from the suspension and enable the SEUPB and Mr McKinney to go their separate ways on agreed terms. Thus it was agreed that Mr McKinney would be reinstated as chief executive of the SEUPB with effect from noon on Friday 5 December 2003 and that he would then resign with effect from Wednesday 10 December 2003.

Special European Union Programmes Body

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a letter of apology was issued to the chief executive of the Special European Union Programmes Body for his suspension, once he was re-instated.

Baroness Amos: No. shirley

Special European Union Programmes Body

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the expenditure of the Special European Union Programmes Body on (a) outside consultants; and (b) staff costs in each year since its inception.

Baroness Amos: Details of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) expenditure on outside consultants and staff costs for the years available since its inception are provided below:
	
		
			  2000(1) 2001 2002 
			 Expenditure
			 Staff costs £433,409 £587,574 £914,491 
			 Consultancy £68,788 £193,956 £52,909 
		
	
	(1) Covers the period 2 December 1999 to 31 December 2000.

Northern Ireland: Support for Victims ofCivil Unrest

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they plan to provide further support for victims of civil unrest in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Amos: The Government have made a commitment to work with the Irish Government, the political parties and victims and survivors to seek to establish what further practical steps can be taken to recognise and address the suffering of all victims. The Government continue to work towards meeting this commitment and as part of this process the Victims Minister, Angela Smith, is currently engaged in a consultation process to develop the next generation of victims' policy.
	The aim is for government to understand more about the needs of victims and survivors and to respond positively to these needs.

Northern Ireland: Electricity Generation and Supply

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the generation and supply of electricity in Northern Ireland are adequate for the expected demand for electricity in the next five years.

Baroness Amos: Both generation and supply of electricity in Northern Ireland are adequate for the next five years. There is existing installed capacity of some 2052MW and an additional 400MW capacity will be available from April 2005 with the new Coolkeeragh Combined Cycle Gas Turbine units. Expected peak demand for 2003–04 is 1650MW and this is projected to rise over the next five years to 1830MW in 2008–09.

Northern Ireland: Local Government

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals there are for reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Amos: There are currently no proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland.
	The future roles, responsibilities and functions of local government in Northern Ireland are being examined as part of the comprehensive review of public administration (RPA). Minister Ian Pearson launched a major public consultation exercise on the review on 13 October 2003. The consultation document seeks views on the principles and characteristics to underpin any reformed system of public administration, as well as outlining five alternative high-level models of public administration for consideration. The deadline for responses to this consultation is 27 February 2004.

Service Veterans: Joint Work with US Administration

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the joint enterprise with the United States administration on service veterans has benefited the United Kingdom.

Lord Bach: The Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America work very closely together on a wide range of veterans' issues. This relationship allows us the opportunity to share the results of research and to discuss many other areas of policy for the potential benefit of current and future veterans.
	This relationship is evident at a number of levels. My honourable friend, the Minister for Veterans, recently met the American Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington to discuss common policy interests. He has also met a number of Ministers in other countries who are responsible for veterans' matters. The Senior International Forum (SIF) is an opportunity for senior officials from the US and UK, as well as of the other member countries (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) to work together. Following its second meeting in London in December 2002, the group agreed that closer co-operation on veterans-related research would be led by the US. Other outcomes of the London meeting include the exchange of best practice on service resettlement arrangements and on business innovation in veterans-related support services as well as the creation of closer IT links between veterans' affairs departments. Furthermore, the US and the UK have worked together and kept one another apprised on specific issues surrounding the ill health reported by some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict in response to veterans' concerns. In support of this, the MoD has provided King's College School of Medicine with data to enable it to conduct an epidemiological study for the US Department of Defense that will look at whether service in the Gulf is associated with increased illness in UK Gulf veterans.

Challenger II Tanks

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many Challenger II tanks are currently battle-worthy; how many of them are undergoing first-line repairs; and how many second-line repairs.

Lord Bach: I will write to the noble Lord shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Gulf War 1990–91: Illness and Research Programme

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the 10 per cent cut in defence research spending will affect the continuing research into undiagnosed illnesses in veterans of the 1991 Gulf conflict.

Lord Bach: This Government continue to place a high priority on responding to the concerns of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict as our current research programme in this area—costing at least £8.5 million to complete—demonstrates. There are no plans to reduce this programme.

Child Protection

Lord Smith of Leigh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information they have about the increasing number of children recorded as "at risk"; and whether the recently announced increase in funding matches this growing demand.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The most recent information available on the number of children and young people on child protection registers, i.e. who are considered to be at continuing risk of significant harm and for whom there is a child protection plan, may be found in the publication Referrals, Assessments and Children and Young People on Child Protection Registers, England—Year ending 31 March 2002. The publication can be obtained from the Internet at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/cpr2002.htm.
	The number of children and young people on child protection registers at 31 March for the past 10 years are shown below:
	
		Children and young people on child protection registers at 31 March 1992 to 2002
		
			 England Numbers All children(2) 
			 1992 38,600 
			 1993 32,500 
			 1994 34,900 
			 1995 35,000 
			 1996 32,400 
			 1997 32,400 
			 1998 31,600 
			 1999 31,900 
			 2000 30,300 
			 2001 26,800 
			 2002 25,700 
		
	
	Source:
	CPR3 return
	(2) The "all children" figures include unborn children.
	This data show that the number of children and young people on child protection registers has been falling since 1995 (apart from a slight increase in 1999). At the same time, funding for children's personal social services has risen, as shown in the table below.
	
		Children's Personal Social Services Revenue Provisions 1993–2004—2004–05
		
			  Children's SSA/FSSs Children's Grants Children's Total Provision Increase over previous year 
			 Year £m £m £m % 
			 1993–94 1,681.4 — 1,681.4  
			 1994–95 1,737.5 — 1,737.5 3.3 
			 1995–96 1,737.7 — 1,737.7 0.0 
			 1996–97 1,754.7 — 1,754.7 1.0 
			 1997–98 1,754.7 — 1,754.7 0.0 
			 1998–99 1,829.3 — 1,829.3 4.3 
			 1999–2000 1,900.0 75.0 1,975.0 8.0 
			 2000–01 1,997.7 120.0 2,117.7 7.2 
			 2001–02 1,832.8 419.0 2,251.8 6.3 
			 2002–03 1,909.5 488.0 2,397.5 6.5 
			 2003–04 3,038.4 635.4 3,673.8 (3) 9.3 
			 2004–05 3,737.4 257.6 3,995.0 8.7 
		
	
	(3) after adjusting to exclude resource equalisation.

Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003: Schools and Colleges

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	As regards their proposal to amend the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, why it is necessary to permit Catholic sixth-form colleges to discriminate against non-Catholics in their admission policies in order to ensure that the Catholic character and ethos of the colleges is preserved; and
	As regards their proposal to amend the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, what is the "minimum percentage of Catholic students" that Catholic sixth-form colleges should be permitted to require in order to ensure that the Catholic character and ethos of the colleges is preserved; and
	As regards their proposal to amend the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003; what proportion of students at the Catholic sixth-form colleges are non-Catholics; and
	As regards their proposal to amend the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, whether their proposal would permit a Christian Foundation school or college to discriminate against Jewish students in order to preserve their Christian character and ethos; and
	How their proposal to amend the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 will ensure that the admission arrangements for Catholic sixth-form colleges do not discriminate in a way that is incompatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and European Community law.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The right of Catholic sixth-form colleges to give preference on admission to Catholic students, particularly in areas where Catholic post-16 education is either not available or is insufficient in schools, is important to ensure that these students are as able to access a Catholic sixth-form education as their contemporaries elsewhere. Catholic sixth-form colleges were established to provide a Catholic education for Catholic students and seek to offer places for all Catholic students who apply. Their ability to do so and to fulfil their mission would be significantly curtailed in cases of oversubscription were they not able to give such preference.
	The Catholic character of sixth-form colleges is maintained by the leadership of the principal and key members of staff. It is supported by all those who work in the colleges, strengthened by the commitment of Catholic students and their parents and valued by students of other faiths and none and their parents who wish to participate in the work and life of the colleges. A college's success in fulfilling its mission is measured by reference to all these criteria as well as by the numbers of Catholic students and others who join, and wish to join, the institution. Consequently, the viability of a college as a provider of Catholic education is a more complex judgment than the application of a minimum number criterion and is always reviewed in the context of local circumstances.
	In 2002 the proportion of non-Catholics in the 16 Catholic sixth-form colleges varied from 38 per cent to 63 per cent.
	The regulations, which are yet to be laid, are specifically drafted to permit only those institutions listed in a schedule to give preference in their admissions in respect of non-vocational provision to persons of a particular religion or belief in order to preserve that institution's religious ethos. The amendment is not specific to any religion or belief and the schedule lists Catholic sixth-form colleges because they are the only religion or belief based institutions incorporated into the further education sector. We have no plans to incorporate any other religion or belief-based institutions into the further education sector. Nothing in the regulations allows an institution to discriminate otherwise against a person of a particular religion or belief.
	The regulations will amend s20(1)(b) of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/1660). The amendment will not apply to any admission to a course of vocational training, and is therefore consistent with European Community law, in particular Council Directive 2000/78/EC ("Establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation" OJ L303,02.12/2000 p16). The regulations will comply with the international instruments referred to, incuding the ECHR, if any rights in those instruments are engaged.
	The amendment is limited so that it goes no further than necessary to meet concerns as to the need to protect the religious character of the institutions. The amendment will only apply to listed colleges so the extent of its effect is minimised although the substantive provision itself will be generic and could, in principle, apply to institutions of other religions on an equal basis. The amendment will also only apply in relation to Regulation 20(1)(b) (the ability to admit) and does not therefore permit discrimination in the terms of, or post, admission.
	The test imposed by the amendment will also be strict. Preferential admission must be shown as necessary to maintain an institution's religious ethos. This will ensure that any preferential admissions are justified and proportionate in the circumstances.

Energy Policy: Ministerial Responsibilities in House of Lords

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Lord Sainsbury of Turville has ceased to have any responsibility for dealing with energy matters in this House.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: As I stated in Answer to Lord Peyton of Yeovil's Question on 17 September, energy policy remains the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but many other departments, and principally the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have an important role to play. We have created the Sustainable Energy Policy Network, to ensure that departments and other key stakeholders work closely together to deliver the commitments set out in the energy White Paper.

Energy Policy: Ministerial Responsibilities in House of Lords

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who will answer for the Department of Trade and Industry on energy matters in the House of Lords.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I answer for the Department of Trade and Industry on energy matters, supported by my noble friend Lord Davies. We have created the Sustainable Energy Policy Network, to ensure that departments and other key stakeholders work closely together to deliver the commitments set out in the energy White Paper.
	However, Lord Whitty will be taking the Energy Bill through, during its House of Lords stages.

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the reply by the Lord Whitty on 16 December (HL Deb, col. 1054), whether they will clarify the responsibilities of the proposed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority with regard to the treatment, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous material as set out in Clause 3(1)(d) and (e) of the Energy Bill.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Clauses 3 and 34 of the Energy Bill set out the responsibilities of the proposed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) with regard to the handling of hazardous material. Clause 3(1)(d) provides for the NDA to be given responsibility for operating designated facilities for treating, storing, transporting and disposing of "hazardous material". Clause 3(1)(e) provides for the NDA to be given responsibility for treating, storing, transporting and disposing of hazardous material in designated circumstances. Hazardous material is defined in Clause 34 of the Bill as "nuclear matter" as per the Nuclear Installations Act 1965; "radioactive waste" as per the Radioactive Substances Act 1993; and things "contaminated as a result of nuclear activities" as per Clause 33(5) of the Energy Bill. These provisions will enable the NDA to treat, store and dispose of hazardous material, including low level waste (LLW), intermediate level waste (ILW) and high level waste (HLW), at designated sites for which it is responsible, and in designated circumstances at sites for which it is not responsible. The NDA's plans for carrying out this function will be required to have particular regard for government policy (Clause 9), and will be set out in its strategy (Clause 12) and annual work plans (Clause 13).
	Policy on the long-term management of radioactive waste is being looked at by the Government's new independent body, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). CoRWM has been asked by sponsoring Ministers to aim to deliver its recommendations by the end of 2005. Following delivery of its recommendations, the Government will need to decide and announce their policy and thereafter set appropriate arrangements in place for its delivery. As set out in Clause 3 of the Energy Bill, the NDA will have responsibilities in this regard.

Disabled Young People: John Grooms Inquiry

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Andrews on 12 June 2003 (WA65), what was the outcome of the assessment of the report of the John Grooms's inquiry into the needs of disabled young people; and whether they will be taking any further action on the report's findings and recommendations.

Lord Warner: We have considered the report carefully. Our assessment is that it highlights a range of areas in which services for disabled people need to be improved. The Government recognise this fully and we are pursuing policies vigorously to enhance the position of disabled people.
	The reply of 12 June given by my noble friend Lady Andrews emphasised a range of measures we are taking to improve services for disabled people. We are continuing with these measures. We have also established a review of the information gathered about services for disabled people so as to better be able to measure improvements in services.
	The report also makes a series of recommendations for local authorities and primary care trusts. It is for these bodies to review the recommendations and take appropriate action.

National Service Framework for Children

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether screening for overweight and obesity will feature as part of the National Service Framework for Children.

Lord Warner: The National Service Framework for Children will set standards relating to health and to social care services for children and young people and will also cover prevention, including the prevention of obesity. Guidelines for child health surveillance will be included in the NSF, and height and weight measurement will be a part of the pre-school surveillance programme.

Biodiversity: UK Action Plan and Strategy for England

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the monitoring and reporting programme established under the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan was devised after consultation with the European Union; and whether there are standardised data gathering and monitoring across the European Union.

Lord Whitty: The European Union was not consulted in developing the monitoring and reporting arrangements for the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan. The first round of monitoring of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan was undertaken in 1999 before the European Commission had completed its Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans. The European Commission is only now considering how to assess its Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans.
	There is very little standardised data gathering and monitoring of biodiversity across Europe, though several EU initiatives are in progress. The European Environment Agency is developing a core set of indicators, including biodiversity, which are based on standardised data gathering and new data standards are being developed. The Habitats Committee of the EU Habitats and Species Directive is considering standardised approaches to assessment of favourable condition of species and habitats of Community interest. The European Commission has recently issued a call for research proposals within the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development on the topic of monitoring methods and systems of surveillance for species and habitats. There are also a number of other initiatives led by non governmental organisations undertaking surveillance of different species groups including birds, butterflies and plants.

Biodiversity: UK Action Plan and Strategy for England

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made towards developing a biodiversity strategy for England; and how involved the broad stakeholder group has been in the process.

Lord Whitty: In October 2002 the Government published Working with the grain of nature: a biodiversity strategy for England. The strategy can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/biostrat/index.htm. The strategy aims to ensure that the implications for biodiversity as a whole are considered as an integral part of other key policies including agriculture, water, woodlands, urban and the marine and coastal environment.
	Development of the strategy involved the active participation of a wide range of organisations and individuals both inside and outside Government. Stakeholders continue to be involved through workstreams established to take forward implementation of the strategy.
	The England Biodiversity Group, comprising representatives of central and local government, conservation agencies, business and land management organisations and non-government conservation bodies, oversees implementation of the Strategy. The group published an annual stock-take in December 2003 and this can be found at www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/biostrat/stocktake2003.pdf.
	In December 2003 we published a set of biodiversity indicators to help monitor progress with the strategy. The indicators can be found at www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/biostrat/indicators031201.pdf. The Government recognise and value highly the contribution of stakeholder groups and individuals to the collection of data used in many of the indicators.

Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Countries Ratifying International Treaty

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many and which countries have ratified the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, adopted on 3 November 2001, and how many and which countries have repudiated it.

Lord Whitty: The following 33 countries have deposited with the Director-General of the FAO instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture:
	Algeria
	Bangladesh
	Bhutan
	Cambodia
	Canada
	Central African Republic
	Cote d'Ivoire
	Cyprus
	Democratic People's Republic of Korea
	Democratic Republic of the Congo
	El Salvador
	Eritrea
	Ethiopia
	Ghana
	Guinea
	India
	Jordan
	Kenya
	Kuwait
	Malawi
	Malaysia
	Mauritania
	Mauritius
	Myanmar
	Nicaragua
	Pakistan
	Paraguay
	Peru
	Saint Lucia
	Sierra Leone
	Sudan
	Syrian Arab Republic
	Uganda
	The treaty comes into force 90 days after the deposition of the 40th instrument of ratification. Acceptance, approval or accession and thus the matter of "repudiation" by any given country is not at present an issue. (clean)

Landfill Regulations: Dredging

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What guidance is given, within the context of the Landfill Regulations 2002, to agencies dredging watercourses as to when the dredgings constitute waste as defined by the regulations.

Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency will be updating Regulatory Guidance Note 10 on the Application of the Landfill Directive to Dredging Operations. Also, the Government are planning to issue an interpretive guidance note on the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, when the regulations are amended. This guidance is expected to be issued in April 2004 and will cover dredgings and landfill disposal.

Trout and Trout Fisheries: Ligula Tapeworm

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information has recently been received by the Environment Agency concerning damage being done to trout and trout fisheries by cormorants spreading ligula tapeworm parasites amongst the fish population; and whether a cull of the cormorant population will be considered; and
	What action is contemplated by the Environment Agency to deal with the problems caused by cormorants, in particular the spreading of the ligula tapeworm as revealed by the Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Group; and whether the Environment Agency will carry out surveys of trout lakes to ascertain the extent of the disease.

Lord Whitty: The Ligula tapeworm does not commonly affect trout and there is no evidence to suggest that trout or trout fisheries are damaged by this parasite. Cormorants can spread the parasite between fish populations, most commonly roach, but gulls are regarded as the main transmission vector in the UK. Article 5 of the EC Birds Directive requires member states to establish a general system of protection for all bird species. In Great Britain this is through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There is thus no provision to enable a general cull. Licences can be granted to allow small numbers of birds to be killed or taken as an aid to scaring, where the birds present a serious problem for fisheries and where there are no other suitable alternatives.
	The Environment Agency has no plans to carry out surveys of trout fisheries to ascertain the extent of the disease.